THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1) of section 142. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section.]” 11. Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 starts with a non obstante clause and provides that where, in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income tax payable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced details and documents and made their submissions. The Assessing Officer observed that from the impugned documents it was seen that the assessee had deposited Rs. 59,42,709/- and Rs. 3,65,97,000/- with M/s. Nissan Developers

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ARSHIA GLOBAL TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to justify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee failed to produce original cash memos and bills for the sales alleged to have been effected and to substantiate the cash deposit into their bank accounts. During the scrutiny assessment based on the information received from the investigation wing, notice under Section 142(1

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

section 142(1) of the Act and on 15.11.2019 show cause notices were issued by the assessing officer in course of reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 120 or any other provision of the Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, who is directed under clause (b) of sub-Section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam

Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee on 28.8.2018. The assessee filed their objection to the reasons which were recorded in the notice dated 23.3.2018. However, the assessing officer disposed of the objection rejecting the stand taken by the assessee by an order dated 11.9.2018. Thereafter, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….For Appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th January, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 398/Kol/2008 & I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Quashing The Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Said Act Despite The Fact That There Was Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Material Facts In The

142(1) of the Act dated 10th December, 2002 and on 13th January, 2003. There were, therefore, three issues which were raised by the assessing officer and one such issue pertains to the basis of realizable market value for claim of deduction under 3 Section 80IA of the Act. In response to the said notices the assessee had submitted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT),KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA)LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th July, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In

Section 142 (1) of the Act and also raised queries which were answered by the assessee and after considering the reply, the original assessment was completed. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

1 of 2017 (Old No. GA 3504 of 2017) for condonation of delay is allowed. Re.: ITAT No.339 of 2017 This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata

M/S METROCITY DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) KOLKATA & ORS

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on the basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified. The relevant part of the order of the HOn‟ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “4. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata